Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Harvard's endowment would certainly last longer than any other school's but you would need to do the math and make some assumptions on investment returns before concluding that it would never run out.

The University of Texas made a smart move a year or two ago by dumping a pile of their cash into gold. As long as they don't panic with the inevitable (and orchestrated) downturns this move will earn them a tremendous return...or more accurately put, it will maintain the purchasing power of that part of their stash. (They then cashed in approximately 20% of their bullion in favour of some leveraged gold instruments...risky but greater potential return).

Some bright people there.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Some bright people in the 17thC, too, according to former Massachusetts governor William "Flopsie" Weld (so nicknamed for the Playboy bunny he portrayed in a Hasty Pudding show), who loved to claim that his Puritan forebears arrived in Cambridge in 1630 with nothing but the shirts on their backs....and three kegs of gold. From those kegs of gold flowed such campus landmarks as Weld Hall, Weld Boathouse, &c &c.

Weld was in my class and when he gave the Latin oration at Commencement, no sooner had he said "Gallia omnia in partes tres divisa est," or words to that effect, than the entire senior class burst into guffaws. Further blazing laughter and cheers ensued throughout his speech. All the parents were enchanted..."hmmmn, didn't know that the entire senior class understands spoken Latin..." Weld, of course, had had the forethought to hand out an English trot for his speech. Even then, the consummate politician.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Harvard's endowment would certainly last longer than any other school's but you would need to do the math and make some assumptions on investment returns before concluding that it would never run out. In fact with no incoming tuition revenue I doubt it could last indefinitely, assuming Harvard would continue to invest in its future in order to maintain its status as one of the more elite universities in the world (and I think that goes without saying). And the size of endowments doesn't always go up - didn't Harvard's shrink by something like $10 billion in the last financial crises, even with all that tuition revenue coming in?

Short term fluctuations happen. Over the long term, Harvard can probably be expected to earn a real return of at least 4%, which would be around $1.2 billion per year. The current cost of tuition and room and board at Harvard is estimated to be about $70,000. With about 7,000 undergraduate students, that comes to about $490 million annually. So if that's what they wanted to do, it's highly likely that they could, indeed, do so indefinitely.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

The University of Texas made a smart move a year or two ago by dumping a pile of their cash into gold. As long as they don't panic with the inevitable (and orchestrated) downturns this move will earn them a tremendous return...or more accurately put, it will maintain the purchasing power of that part of their stash. (They then cashed in approximately 20% of their bullion in favour of some leveraged gold instruments...risky but greater potential return).

Over the long term, gold is just about the worst investment you can make. Contrary to what it's boosters say, it isn't even particularly risk free. If I'm going to get the return on t-bills, which is approximately what gold provides, I don't also want the volatility of a commodity, which is what gold also provides. Even if you're irrationally scared of inflation there are much better options out there.

 

[D2D]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Over the long term, Harvard can probably be expected to earn a real return of at least 4%, which would be around $1.2 billion per year. The current cost of tuition and room and board at Harvard is estimated to be about $70,000.

But if past trends continue that current cost of $70,000 will rise much faster than the endowment's assumed growth rate of 4% per year. The full cost of tuition + room and board has gone up from around $5,000 to $70,000 over the past 45 years! If the same rate of increase were to continue over the next 45 years, that cost would rise to nearly $1,000,000 per student, per year!

 

[Trillium]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Harvard's endowment would certainly last longer than any other school's but you would need to do the math and make some assumptions on investment returns before concluding that it would never run out. In fact with no incoming tuition revenue I doubt it could last indefinitely, assuming Harvard would continue to invest in its future in order to maintain its status as one of the more elite universities in the world (and I think that goes without saying). And the size of endowments doesn't always go up - didn't Harvard's shrink by something like $10 billion in the last financial crises, even with all that tuition revenue coming in?

Agreed. Furthermore, I would expect that the rate of inflow of future alumni endowment money would likely fall significantly if potential donors saw that their donations were being allocated to fund free tuition for all, regardless of means.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

But if past trends continue that current cost of $70,000 will rise much faster than the endowment's assumed growth rate of 4% per year. The full cost of tuition + room and board has gone up from around $5,000 to $70,000 over the past 45 years! If the same rate of increase were to continue over the next 45 years, that cost would rise to nearly $1,000,000 per student, per year!

Note that tuition is a cost that is largely under the control of the institution itself so this is a comparison that doesn't really make sense; if Harvard wants it to go up more slowly, it will. Further, that's probably a lot closer to a 4% return than you think it is. A fourteen-fold increase over 45 years is just over 6% compounded annually.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Over the long term, gold is just about the worst investment you can make. Contrary to what it's boosters say, it isn't even particularly risk free. If I'm going to get the return on t-bills, which is approximately what gold provides, I don't also want the volatility of a commodity, which is what gold also provides. Even if you're irrationally scared of inflation there are much better options out there.

I couldn't disagree with you more. You have it completely backwards. Your opinion is that of those who don't understand it...which, unfortunately, is the majority of people.

Gold (bullion) is not an investment. First and foremost it is money. It is the most stable form of money on the planet. It also happens to have a 5000 year history to back up its ability to maintain its purchasing power over the long term. It is like insurance...you buy it for prudence. (And what most people don't understand is that when you buy it you are just exchanging one type or form of currency for actual honest real money. Note that currency is not money although we all mistakenly call it that). Your return on your t-bills, or whatever else, is paying you in a depreciating currency so your purchasing power is being eroded over time...thanks to the Federal Reserve and virtually every other central bank who are in a race to the bottom to see who can depreciate their currency the fastest thereby ultimately defaulting on their debts. That, over the long term, is the most important consideration...maintaining the puchasing power of whatever wealth you have...everything else is meaningless.

Physical gold and silver (the monetary metals) are the only monetary assets that are not simultaneously someone else's liability. When you own them, (outside of the banking system) you own them...period.

With many gub'ments, including yours and mine, already having the wording in place to "Cyprus" their own citizens...the time is rapidly approaching where people invested in paper are going to be more worried about the "return of their investment" than "the return on their investment".

As J.P Morgan once famously and accurately stated, "Gold is money. Eveything else is credit".

Ever wonder why all the winners at the recent Olympic Games didn't get awarded a T-Bill Medal for their achievement? There's a reason for that, with a 5000 year history to back up why the best in virtually anything is considered to be the "gold standard" or the epitome.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Agreed. Furthermore, I would expect that the rate of inflow of future alumni endowment money would likely fall significantly if potential donors saw that their donations were being allocated to fund free tuition for all, regardless of means.

Even without a single additional dollar of donations, Harvard could make it happen.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I couldn't disagree with you more. You have it completely backwards. Your opinion is that of those who don't understand it...which, unfortunately, is the majority of people.

Gold (bullion) is not an investment. First and foremost it is money. It is the most stable form of money on the planet. It also happens to have a 5000 year history to back up its ability to maintain its purchasing power over the long term. It is like insurance...you buy it for prudence. (And what most people don't understand is that when you buy it you are just exchanging one type or form of currency for actual honest real money. Note that currency is not money although we all mistakenly call it that). Your return on your t-bills, or whatever else, is paying you in a depreciating currency so your purchasing power is being eroded over time...thanks to the Federal Reserve and virtually every other central bank who are in a race to the bottom to see who can depreciate their currency the fastest thereby ultimately defaulting on their debts. That, over the long term, is the most important consideration...maintaining the puchasing power of whatever wealth you have...everything else is meaningless.

Physical gold and silver (the monetary metals) are the only monetary assets that are not simultaneously someone else's liability. When you own them, (outside of the banking system) you own them...period.

With many gub'ments, including yours and mine, already having the wording in place to "Cyprus" their own citizens...the time is rapidly approaching where people invested in paper are going to be more worried about the "return of their investment" than "the return on their investment".

As J.P Morgan once famously and accurately stated, "Gold is money. Eveything else is credit".

Ever wonder why all the winners at the recent Olympic Games didn't get awarded a T-Bill Medal for their achievement? There's a reason for that, with a 5000 year history to back up why the best in virtually anything is considered to be the "gold standard" or the epitome.

That last paragraph is at least a nonsensical argument for gold that I haven't heard before, so I'll give your post that much credit.

 

[clarksoncluck]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Cluck here.

I didn't watch the Wisco - Harvard game.

Both goalies are good. I get it. Can anyone talk about how each played???

I saw on youtube the Rigsby save. Lucky, good?

From a friend I heard that Maschmeyer made 10 saves which were 5 bell saves and that Rigsby had 3 to 4 off of posts and crossbars which landed behind her.

These 2 girls have been compared, and I know that the shots were in favour of Wisco 2 to 1, but I have yet to hear any feedback of the goalies after the game. Obviously both played well, but if you had to do a 3 player shoot-out against a goalie which one would you not want to face????

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

That last paragraph is at least a nonsensical argument for gold that I haven't heard before, so I'll give your post that much credit.

While I did add that last paragraph for a bit of levity it is not nonsensical at all. The earth's population has acknowledged and appreciated the value of gold and silver for millennia. It transcends every generation and is cross cultural. The gold and silver medals are symbolic representations of a "like kind" transaction, a fair "value for value" exchange...best performance deserves what has been perceived for millennia as the best or highest value...the second best performance deserves the next best value trade. Pretty simple stuff.

You don't think that it is just a coincidence that gold and silver medals are used in this symbolic way, do you?

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I saw on youtube the Rigsby save. Lucky, good?

Both, lucky and good.

She was good to keep her focus and realize that even with the puck coming from behind her out into the slot and even with her being so out of position for the forthcoming shot from the slot, that there was still something she could do to attempt to block that shot regardless of how low percentage an attempt it might be. And so, she attempted it while many would have been defeated in attitude and not attempted it...in my opinion.

She was lucky in that the shot was a one timer and she had a split second to "guess" where it might go ("guess" is being extremely generous because of her being way out of position and off balance in any lunging attempt to take a stab at it so her range of possibilities with respect to where her stick might go was rather limited). So more than anything the stick placement was luck but the luck would not have had a chance to materialize to her advantage if she had caved to a defeatist attitude caused by her being so out of position for the forthcoming shot.

I watched it several times in slow motion and it was still hard to tell but it looked like the puck hit her stick either just above the heel on the paddle or just below the heel on the blade.

 

[D2D]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

Both, lucky and good.

She was good to keep her focus and realize that even with the puck coming from behind her out into the slot and even with her being so out of position for the forthcoming shot from the slot, that there was still something she could do to attempt to block that shot regardless of how low percentage an attempt it might be. And so, she attempted it while many would have been defeated in attitude and not attempted it...in my opinion.

She was lucky in that the shot was a one timer and she had a split second to "guess" where it might go ("guess" is being extremely generous because of her being way out of position and off balance in any lunging attempt to take a stab at it so her range of possibilities with respect to where her stick might go was rather limited). So more than anything the stick placement was luck but the luck would not have had a chance to materialize to her advantage if she had caved to a defeatist attitude caused by her being so out of position for the forthcoming shot.

That's the way I saw it too. I'd add that the reason she was so out of position was she went down a little too much, which made it impossible for her to slide across and get square to the shooter. It left the "lunge and a prayer" as her only option.

 

[ARM]

I'd add that the reason she was so out of position was she went down a little too much, which made it impossible for her to slide across and get square to the shooter. It left the "lunge and a prayer" as her only option.

It wasn't her fault, though. Natalie Berg was skating across and got caught on the knob of Rigsby's stick, effectively pulling her out of the net. That's why she was so far out and so far off balance.

 

[Eeyore]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

You don't think that it is just a coincidence that gold and silver medals are used in this symbolic way, do you?

No, but I don't confuse that with gold being a good way to denominate currency.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I'd add that the reason she was so out of position was she went down a little too much

Speaking of which, the predominant or maybe more accurately, the only goaltending style that you see in the last 10-15 years has been the butterfly style. On almost every shot you can count on the goaltender to drop down into the butterfly which always makes me wonder why there doesn't seem to be a more or any concerted effort to shoot into the top half of the net. I understand that low shots can be deflected intentionally and otherwise and take away the goaltender's eyes but going high most of the time has always seemed like a no brainer to me.

I spoke to a D1 player a while back about this and asked if the coaching staff ever ran drills on this kind of stuff and maybe explained the five holes concept etc...and whether or not there were ever any simple shooting drills in practice. I was told that never occurs because by the time they got to D1 players are supposed to know how to shoot. While I got the general logic I thought the reasoning was pathetic...meaning that if this is in fact the case, then coaches are missing the boat on this one.

Using this same logic one would have to wonder why professional or high end athletes ever practice anything at all since they all know how they are supposed to do everything.

And this program in question was a very high profile program.

 

[D2D]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

It wasn't her fault, though. Natalie Berg was skating across and got caught on the knob of Rigsby's stick, effectively pulling her out of the net. That's why she was so far out and so far off balance.

Good catch. I hadn't noticed how she got thrown off balance by her own player.

 

[Blackbeard]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

No, but I don't confuse that with gold being a good way to denominate currency.

No confusion exists. It is a great way because politicians can't have it printed up on a whim like they can with a fiat currency which allows them to spend what they don't have and thereby eventually bankrupting their country while mortgaging their great grandchildren's lives. Which is why politicians generally hate gold...they can't prostitute themselves to their electorate by buying votes if the currency is backed by such a hard asset...which, also, by no coincidence, makes the currency that is backed by it way more stable. It's a win/win situation.

 

[Watson Rink]

Re: Harvard Crimson 2013-2014

I completely forgot to post on Senior Day this post from when MacDonald, EParker, Gedman, Armstrong and Fry played their very first games for the Crimson four years ago. Better late than never, I guess. You can fill in your own conclusions, although for three of them, their careers are not yet over.

"Two Games Down; Four Seasons to Go
""Although to us spectators the immediacy of the moment sweeps us into assessing the promise of the first-year players on the basis of -- how many shifts are there in two games? not very many -- and looking ahead to where the team will be in March 2011, stop a moment to consider the time perspective of those first years themselves.

"They're going to be here for four years. Who knows for each of them will develop? I've been watching Harvard's teams since Angela Ruggiero was a pup, and in that time I've seen all sorts of development arcs. One memorable player stood out as a first-year by being a tireless grinder but mistake-prone and penalty-prone: you could see her biting her lip in frustration whenever she went to the penalty box yet again. Her scoring touch bloomed late, but when it did her last-second heroics carried the team on her shoulders throughout the final games of a season. Another memorable player, a productive scorer in her freshman year, never brought her scoring to a higher level but in every other aspect of the game became a superb two-way player whose speed, grit, backchecking slight of hand and smart positioning made her the quintessential player Katie wanted on the ice when the chips were down. My point is that you couldn't have predicted how these kids, or any other first-years, would eventually end up individually.

"As a group, the first-years naturally look beyond where the team will place in the ECAC and NCAA in 2010-2011. This year is a great opportunity for them, if they jell fast enough, with the strong deep senior Class of '11 still on board; their fortunes next season, as part of a very very young team, will depend on how good a Class of '15 can be recruited and how swiftly they can jell; but after that, as juniors and seniors, with a ton of experience under their belts, they can look forward to perhaps being who the Coskrens and Buessers and Ryabkinas are now. It will be quite an adventure for them.

"As spectators, let's sit back and enjoy the ride with them.

Watson Rink"